Slashdot Mirror


AMD and Fujitsu Spin Off Static Memory Giant

prostoalex writes "AMD and Fujitsu will form a new memory company. While corporations typically form new spinoffs every time you turn around, this one is different, claims ZDNet, since it looks like AMD will be splitting into two companies, one dealing in the microprocessor market, another in memory."

97 comments

  1. Logical move for AMD by alphapartic1e · · Score: 1

    AMD has had a history of not just working with processors, such as flash memory. It would only seem logical that AMD would expand revenues through market expansion.

  2. Hmm by Penguuu · · Score: 1

    And another step forward to Microsoft-Amd-Intel-Fujitsu-Hp-Compaq-AOL-Warner-S ony jjoint, which is obviously to come :)

    --
    The problem in the world today is communication. Too much communication - Homer Simpson
  3. AMD doing memory??? by The+Ancients · · Score: 3, Funny

    Get your 512XP+ DDR DIMM. 384MB chips that are as good as the 512MB piece...

    1. Re:AMD doing memory??? by Penguuu · · Score: 1

      It speaks about Flash-memory, which is very different think from those.

      --
      The problem in the world today is communication. Too much communication - Homer Simpson
    2. Re:AMD doing memory??? by insecuritiez · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's rather funny but from my experiance the AMD processors almost run as well as their version number. They could never get away with that in ram though, it's apples to oranges.

    3. Re:AMD doing memory??? by wheany · · Score: 1

      And Intel makes RIMM 4: it runs at 10 GHz, but bandwidth is 300 MB/s

    4. Re:AMD doing memory??? by lastninja · · Score: 1

      384 MB ought to be enough for anybody

      --
      John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
    5. Re:AMD doing memory??? by Mika_Lindman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Get your 512XP+ DDR DIMM. 384MB chips that are as good as the 512MB piece...

      Yes, but this happens only after Intel announces their new 1024GB memory, which has only 6 bits per byte..

    6. Re:AMD doing memory??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mirror Bit? Read up on it...

    7. Re:AMD doing memory??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Browsing at +5? How did you see the +2 parent then?

    8. Re:AMD doing memory??? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "Yes, but this happens only after Intel announces their new 1024GB memory, which has only 6 bits per byte.."

      Which has a 33,000 mile bus, increasing the latency to 400ms...

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  4. (Processor-)AMD seems to be confident by psavo · · Score: 4, Informative

    AFAIK Flash-AMD subsidizes currently a lot of AMD's processor business, so current part of AMD that makes Processors seems to be confident in it's future to take this step.
    And remember that AMD is much-much more than Athlon/Hammer, they make lot's of different processors.

    --
    fucktard is a tenderhearted description
  5. Why? by mrselfdestrukt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AMD is a big player in the CPU market, but there are a lot of companies doing memory chips, isn't there? So, why on earth are they doing it? I hope it's viable for them , because they can lose a lot of money if they're not careful.
    iMHO.

    --
    "I used to have that really cool,funny sig ,but it got stolen."
    1. Re:Why? by psavo · · Score: 2, Informative

      AMD is much bigger player in Flash than in CPU -business.

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    2. Re:Why? by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      AMD is a big player in the CPU market, but there are a lot of companies doing memory chips, isn't there?

      Interestingly, Intel used to have most of its business in memory, but had to make an abrupt switch to processors when it were undercut by memory producers in Japan. Andy Grove writes about this in his book Only the Paranoid Survive.

  6. Re:Apples to Oranges, or... by The+Ancients · · Score: 1
    Apples to Windows PCs

    mutter, mutter, MHz myth...mutter, mutter...

  7. Motivation by nath_o_brien · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are more indepth articles about this here and here. The latter article discussed the motivation for the move in a little more depth:
    "This is only going to help AMD and Fujitsu become as stronger competitor and move up in market position," said Krewell. "They are in better shape to challenge Intel because they appear as one stronger brand, rather than as two lesser brands."

    --
    - Welcome the coming of the New World Odour
  8. Or... by aiyo · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..they can just manufacture space heaters. I mean, the infasructure is already there so it comes naturally.

    1. Re:Or... by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yup. Iirc the newer Athlon XPs put off more heat per area than the sun. Now that's hot. :)

    2. Re:Or... by paulcammish · · Score: 1
      ..they can just manufacture space heaters...

      Er... you mean... they dont already?

      I thought thats what I had, it does heat the room pretty well...

    3. Re:Or... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1, Insightful
      they can just manufacture space heaters. I mean, the infasructure is already there so it comes naturally.

      Slashdot Karma Whore Business Plan:

      1) say something about [hot AMD CPUs/how Microsoft sucks/Linux is best for task X]
      2) ?????
      3) Karma Profit!!!

      Didja know the latest Pentium4's put out more heat than the Athlon XP?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Or... by afidel · · Score: 1

      I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but this is utter bullocks. Checking MBM5 on my Athlon 2100+ server it is currently running at 95 degrees F in an ambiant environment of 72 degrees, not hot at all. At full load it will shoot up to the space heater temperature of 115 degrees =) This is using the retail heat sink and fan btw.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  9. The Press Release by Culturejammer · · Score: 5, Informative
    Press Release

    And what I feel is a better article.

  10. Compact Flash Future? by rf0 · · Score: 1

    Straying slightly off the beaten path does anyone know if they have any plans of how big they can make CF cards? I know there is a the IBM Microdrive which is upto 1GB but I would think the CF would be cheaper looking at the current prices of 512Mb pieces

    Rus

    1. Re:Compact Flash Future? by pacc · · Score: 1

      CF is not really equal to flash, it's a special format created by Sandisk that emulates ATA disks.

      Pretec has announced a CF-card with 6 GB of flash at Cebit (lowering the price of the 3 GB ones)

      Since the ATA protocol needs some interface circuits it can probably be adapted to larger sizes and if size is the only thing that matters you can always try to connect a normal harddrive with an adapter.

    2. Re:Compact Flash Future? by tkittel · · Score: 1

      A 1GB solid-state CF card has been out in years already. Last thing i heard IIRC was a planned 4GB or something like that.

  11. Splitting? Hah! by dcmeserve · · Score: 1, Insightful
    ...since it looks like AMD will be splitting into two companies, one dealing in the microprocessor market, another in memory."

    The Flash business is the (relative) cash cow that's keeping the rest of the company afloat. No way it's going to split.

    That's a neat trick -- include an outrageous-but-believeable-to-newbies statment in your story submission, get it posted! I'll have to try that.

    --
    "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    1. Re:Splitting? Hah! by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      The Flash business is the (relative) cash cow that's keeping the rest of the company afloat. No way it's going to split.

      No, they split the CPU divison away, assign it all the debts, and let it die, which gives the more lucrative flash division a big jump on the books.

      Coca Cola used to do this with spinoffs.

    2. Re:Splitting? Hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry - you are wrong. I know because I am an AMD flash designer.

    3. Re:Splitting? Hah! by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      Just because you're an engineer in the company doesn't mean you know what the top-level dudes are thinking about.

      Though if you happen to really have some data on this -- I'd be interested to hear it. ;)

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
  12. Re:Apples to Oranges, or... by XipX · · Score: 1

    Would the Windows PCs be lemons then?

  13. Great! by stephenry · · Score: 1, Funny

    Great! Now i can get dirt cheap memory, that requires 70W of power and 20 heatsinks!

    1. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhh..

      you got it wrong there, intel made the system with need for ramsinks(rimm..). and they fuckin already did it too!

    2. Re:Great! by Beetjebrak · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you're referring to the heat generated by Athlons.. Intel overtook AMD recently and the P4 now radiates more heat, it just dissipates it better.

      --
      Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
  14. Disc is still better for repeated writes by morzel · · Score: 1
    The problem with current CF-technology is that it is limited in the number of programming cycles (ie: writes) before it breaks.
    Although there are filesystems available for embedded systems that distribute writes to flash as much as possible, flash drives will wear out a lot faster than their microdrive counterparts in write-intensive applications.

    --
    Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
    [Zappa]
  15. Not Static Memory by warmcat · · Score: 3, Informative

    AMD make flash. Nowhere in the article does it talk about Static RAM.

    When talk exceeds the bounds of the talker's knowledge, there ought to be a segfault :-)

    1. Re:Not Static Memory by Troll_Kamikaze · · Score: 1

      When talk exceeds the bounds of the talker's knowledge, there ought to be a segfault :-)

      Nah, then Eric Raymond's laptop would put the lie to claims that Linux doesn't crash.

  16. Siemens / Infinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How wonder what relationship this has with Siemens/Infinion. Siemens cooperates with Fujitsu and is very successful in the German market. And Infinion is a Siemens-spin-off that produces memory as well...

  17. Flash by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 1

    Hey, will they be the leaders in the future of Flash?

    The new company, which will include all of both companies' flash memory operations, will be headed by Bertrand Cambou, who was recently promoted to senior vice president at AMD, the newspaper said, adding that the company would have one combined sales force.

    Hey just think, if they got Sony in there memory sticks would be everywhere!

    --
    --------
    Free your mind.
  18. ma&pa? by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    And another step forward to Microsoft-Amd-Intel-Fujitsu-Hp-Compaq-AOL-Warner-M a&Pa's_Country_Cookin-S ony jjoint, which is obviously to come :)

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  19. Re:Athlon XPs hotter than the sun. by Surak · · Score: 3, Funny

    newer Athlon XPs put off more heat per area than the sun

    I didn't believe you so I actually tested it. And you're right! My Athlon 2600 XP box puts off WAYYY more heat than my Ultra 80! ;)

  20. Just wanted to add.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    AMD's Flash business has always contributed to the bottom line enough to help cover losses during R&D years like this one and last year. With them seperated, the Fujitsu/AMD combination will be able to loan the money to the AMD processor company and list it different on the Balance sheet. This will help them both in the accounting since it will be accounts receivable instead of just play lack of revenues overall.

    This is a good move for AMD. I am really excited to see the future of AMD.

  21. moron bullowing up for a few billyuns more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we'll be fortunate if we get out of this cessspool with any memorIEs/chips, etc...

    lookout bullow. the daze of the Godless greed/fear/death based payper liesense hostage ransom stock markup bullshipping industrIE, is dissolving into coolapps.

    gov.va.msn.?net?/~search? (VAST) effort to funnell US.

    check with yOUR creator, before making any decisions that will affect all of us from now on.

  22. This had roots in earlier activities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Fujitsu and AMD had previously been working together ina joint venture as FASL (Fujitsu AMD Semiconductor Limited) at a plant in japan with a combined workforce (though mostly japanese). They recently finished a new fab in the same town and FASL had already been doing contract work for Siemens. Since FASL had been such a success, I guess they decided it would be a good idea to spin off their remaining assests in flash memory and model it on FASL as a single flash juggernaut.

  23. AMD shares. by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

    I wonder what they will do for the AMD shares. (I don't care about Fujitsu : I don't have any ;) )

    --
    Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
  24. Bad News for Athlon? by west · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Once the division is complete, the blood bath that is their processor division will become even more evident. How long before the shareholders demand that AMD leave a business that is throwing away their money (and always will) and concentrate on a business that actually makes money.

    While the processor industry will be poorer for it, there's no reason why the shareholders should have to foot the bill just so we have competition that lowers Intel's prices and makes their processors faster.

    1. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid Comment. I should mod you down, but I'll reply instead. AMD has always reported the performance of its various divisions, so it's never been a secret how the microprocessor division is doing.

    2. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

      Opteron is less than 3 weeks away. 'Nuff said.

    3. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "How long before the shareholders demand that AMD leave a business that is throwing away their money (and always will) and concentrate on a business that actually makes money."

      Shareholders invested in a microprocessor company that makes chips that compete with Intel Corp.'s chips. If they do not intend to sell microprocessors, they should not purchase stock in AMD.

      I'm sorry, but if you own shares, you already agreed to foot the bill. If you don't like how they are running the show with your invested money, SELL YOUR FUCKING SHARES. So typical of shareholders nowadays to think that the board of a company owes you personally something because you bought 3rd hand stock equivilent to like .01% of their initial public funding. Unless you got in on the IPO, you are a liability to the company, not an investor.

      The stock market is a gamble. If you lose your money, Tuff shit. It's not the board's job to make sure every .01% owner of their company that doesn't even have fucking voting rights is 100% satisfied with their decision. Let me clue you in on something... That is the LAST thing on their minds.

      If you dont like the way they run shit, GO START YOUR OWN COMPANY AND RUN IT HOW YOU WANT IT. And stop bitching to slashdot that you are unhappy with the way the REAL owners that have REAL stakes in the company are running it. It's people like you that royally fuck up the way the stock market is run.
      [/rant]

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    4. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how your rant has anything to do with AMD's situation. AMD has no non-voting stock, and it SHOULD BE the board of directors job to make sure that the company does serve the interests of the shareholders. If they aren't supposed to be serving the interests of the shareholders, then who hell are they supposed to be serving?

    5. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      And presumably AMD officials feel that Opteron will not do well from a market standpoint. You want to do something like this when your stock is as high as possible, and since the market will have anticipated profit from the release, now is the best time to do somethin like this.

      I'm a bit more pessimistic about AMD's CPU division's chances.

    6. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      So typical of shareholders nowadays to think that the board of a company owes you personally something because you bought 3rd hand stock equivilent to like .01% of their initial public funding. Unless you got in on the IPO, you are a liability to the company, not an investor.

      Umm...no. The company *does* owe you, personally, the value of your stock. Sorry, but that's just how capitalism works.

    7. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1
      The company *does* owe you, personally, the value of your stock.
      ONLY if you were in on the initial IPO. As the original poster stated, the company shouldn't have to care less about making sure you get a positive return on stock that you paid $100/share on because it's "the hot thing on the market" if you didn't buy it from them directly. People seem to forget that the entire purpose of a company selling stock is to raise capital. Their obligation back to the shareholder is to pay them back part of the profits they make in a given term, and that's it.

      Personally I have to agree with the grandparent poster, in that people missing this point are the reason why the stock market doesn't work properly. The only time a company should have to worry about their stock price is when they intend to either buy their own stock back or if they intend to sell new stock for new capital. The general corporate board of director's attitude of keeping stock price up to "keep shareholders happy at all cost" as opposed to actually being actually being profitable is exactly what causes disasters like Enron and Worldcom.
    8. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Ramze · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't know the first thing about corporations. The initial IPO doesn't mean jack... Noone buys the stock "originally". That is done by an investment banker -- usually a firm that has set up the value of the company and takes a cut of the price before they RESELL it to investors. There is no human being on the planet that has stock that came directly from a company -- that would be illegal. The company gets its original funding from the investment banker -- period. After that, the stock is OWNERSHIP in the company -- that's what the whole purpose of stock. It isn't a LOAN -- it's trading money for ownership. It may be cut up into millions of percentages, but the stock holders are the owners of the company. The board members work for them. That is how it works. Shareholders with voting rights vote for board members who then pick officers to run the company. Shareholders ARE the company & if they want higher stock prices or higher dividends (those with a combined 51% or so), that is their decision to make -- not the board or the CEO or anyone else. Of course, you don't have to take the word of a business major who owns stock. You could do a little research and look it up yourself.

    9. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      You're confusing bonds and stocks.

      Bonds are loans with an obligation to pay back money.

      Stocks are a certificate of ownership.

    10. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      Firstly, a business major does not a stock market expert make. Being a business major, you are inhearantly republican economics biased just because that is where all the republicans are. And your post has shown that your understanding of the stock market is from that perspective.

      Secondly, Since joe stock owner doesn't own, or come close to owning, 51% of the stock, and the board members and officers do (in the real world), Your whole point about voting is mute (except in certain circumstances of companies that this is not the case, which is not as common and doesn't make up for a significant consideration on the discussion).

      Thirdly, your parent wasn't talking about loans or bonds. He is talking about profit sharing.This is common practice in the stock market as I'm sure you are aware. While his argument isn't technically completely correct, the spirit of it is. His claim (if I read it correctly) is that unless you directly invested into the company (and aren't just transferring stocks from someone who transferred stocks from someone who transferred stocks..... from someone who invested originally, because it is the hot thing on the market) then the company has no reason to be greatful, or have any interest in helping you or people like you. You are forgetting that the purpose of selling stocks is to generate funding for corporations, not for hot head business majors wanting to profit from the volatile inflation and deflation rate of shares.

      Finally, you make an interesting point:

      "The initial IPO doesn't mean jack... Noone buys the stock "originally". That is done by an investment banker -- usually a firm that has set up the value of the company and takes a cut of the price before they RESELL it to investors. There is no human being on the planet that has stock that came directly from a company -- that would be illegal. The company gets its original funding from the investment banker -- period. After that, the stock is OWNERSHIP in the company "

      While this is true, you have only described the details of the supporting facts that were made in the previous argument that you do not support. People who buy stock at the IPO are giving funding to the corporation in exchange for very very partial ownership. The corporation should be greatful that someone is helping the funding. If it wasn't for the people getting in on the IPO, the investment banker would have NEVER set the IPO up in the first place, knowing that it would be a shitty investment. The investment banker is a person or firm who acts as the middleman, just like a computer store acts like the middleman for Microsoft's products, just like B&N is a middleman for book publishers, just as walmart is a middleman for all sorts of companies. Obviously he cannot foot the bill on his own and keep all the stock (or he wouldn't be reselling it) so he is a re-seller of stock ownership, taking a cut as the middleman. Investment bankers don't do IPO's to keep ownership of the entire bundle of stock. They do it specifically to raise funds for the corporation by selling shares [for the company] on the stock market. If anything, a close approximation of an investment banker's role is a salesman, not an investor. Most risk on the investment banker's part is folded into his cut, and if the shares do not sell well, he doesn't pay as much to the company for them.

      What you have described in your detailed analysis of how IPO's are carried out makes no difference in my origional argument, or your parent's argument. Thus, the origional arguments still stand. Your whole point just shows how fucking stupid business majors are about reality. (if you are going to generalize about what business majors know, then so will I)
      -------

      FYI: and since you have shown you don't already know this, shareholders are not the most important thing in the world to a company. Their customers are. Just because YOU hold stock does not mean YOU are the most important asset to the company. If anything, you are a liability because of the attitude you ha

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    11. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      Thought this was funny, both coming from you I might add:

      "Umm...no. The company *does* owe you, personally, the value of your stock. Sorry, but that's just how capitalism works."

      then later on, you try to correct someone else's statement, and then put your foot in your mouth:

      "You're confusing bonds and stocks.

      Bonds are loans with an obligation to pay back money.

      Stocks are a certificate of ownership."

      So which is it? are they obligated to pay you the value of the stock? Or not? You offer 2 conflicting views.

      The facts are that no company owes you anything just because you own stock (except for dividends). Unless you have enough votes to turn a decision, the company doesn't, and shouldn't, give a thought about you.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    12. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Ramze · · Score: 1
      Firstly, a business major does not a stock market expert make. Being a business major, you are inhearantly republican economics biased just because that is where all the republicans are. And your post has shown that your understanding of the stock market is from that perspective.

      Firstly, the argument on politics is irrelevant as there are democrats and republicans in all my classes. Don't make yourself look even more stupid by denying basic economics and finance. Also, noone is an "expert" on the market. There are simply those of us who are more informed than others. And the parent poster was clearly an uninformed flamer.

      Secondly, Since joe stock owner doesn't own, or come close to owning, 51% of the stock, and the board members and officers do (in the real world), Your whole point about voting is mute (except in certain circumstances of companies that this is not the case, which is not as common and doesn't make up for a significant consideration on the discussion).

      "Joe stock owner" may not, but if a majority share of the average joes out there wants something, they own most of the company & therefore should have their way. In the real world, the people buying and selling most of the stocks are wealthy people who often do own 2% to 10% of the stock in a company themselves & they are often on the boards of companies which makes them concerned with stock price as well. I don't know where you get your figures from, but most board members combined don't have 51% of the stock of a company. Members are often considered to have an extremely large majority interest when they have only 12%. All stock owners want to either maximise their dividends or increase their stock value -- that's the point of having stock as an investment tool. To say that the "company" shouldn't care whether or not stockholders are happy with the stock prices is rather like saying a country doesn't care if it has oxygen.

      Thirdly, your parent wasn't talking about loans or bonds. He is talking about profit sharing. This is common practice in the stock market as I'm sure you are aware. While his argument isn't technically completely correct, the spirit of it is. His claim (if I read it correctly) is that unless you directly invested into the company (and aren't just transferring stocks from someone who transferred stocks from someone who transferred stocks..... from someone who invested originally, because it is the hot thing on the market) then the company has no reason to be greatful, or have any interest in helping you or people like you. You are forgetting that the purpose of selling stocks is to generate funding for corporations, not for hot head business majors wanting to profit from the volatile inflation and deflation rate of shares.

      Thirdly, they sure were talking about loans, Which is why I replied to his instead of yours! The poster seems to have the impression that only the "original" investors of a company actually "loaned" the company any money, so all these newbies should shut up and take what the company gives them -- as if the company were some other entity than the stockholders. The "company" as you refer to it is the stockholders. I don't care if anyone is "grateful" -- they're legally required to look after stockholder's interests. His entire point was moot because he didn't know what he was talking about.

      Finally, you make an interesting point:

      "The initial IPO doesn't mean jack... Noone buys the stock "originally". That is done by an investment banker -- usually a firm that has set up the value of the company and takes a cut of the price before they RESELL it to investors. There is no human being on the planet that has stock that came directly from a company -- that would be illegal. The company gets its original funding from the investment banker -- period. After that, the stock is OWNERSHIP in the company " While this is true, you have only described the details of the supporting facts that were made in the previous argu

    13. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Firstly, the argument on politics is irrelevant as there are [some]democrats and [many]republicans in all my classes. Don't make yourself look even more stupid by denying basic economics and finance. Also, noone is an "expert" on the market. There are simply those of us who are more informed than others. And the parent poster was clearly an uninformed flamer. "

      This is an argument about politics, read further to see why...

      "I follow your reasoning, but it's really not relevant"

      Ahh, but it is relevant to almost everyone. If people purchased stock to be owners of a company, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But in the real world, people purchase stock to risk their money and resell it later for profits, and expect their (larger, more important, greater investment)business partners to bend over backwards for their interests. They do this because thats the hot thing on the market, and its highly profitable, no matter who loses(as long as it isn't you, heh). This should be very relevant to you. My rebuttal to your main premise is what you consider irrelevant? So is it safe to assume your main premise in your origional post is also irrelevant? Maybe you need to think on this point some more...

      "I can tell you what the "most important thing to a company is." It's to maximize shareholder wealth given some level of risk. PERIOD"

      And here lies the answer to your politics.

      You see, in the real world, a company is the officers, the board, the employees, and the company's assets. The stockholders are the employers/owners of said officers, board, employees, and assets. So what is the most important thing to the officers, the board, the employees, and the assets? Well, some might say it's to increase all of those things. Others say make profit. Others might say it is to gain marketshare. Others might think its about power. Still, others think its about making the world a better place for everyone, or a better place for the owner (Ex: non profit corporations), even more common, people will say it is to advance technology, or provide something that needs to be provided. Usually, it is a mixture of the above reasons.

      My point is that you are missing the point. Selling stocks to the public is something that a company does to generate funding. Just like non-public companies get investment through more business partners. If that company wants to expand to something larger than they can afford (for reasons described above), they will open up to the public the ability for anybody to be a business partner(buy shares). Trading stocks to make profit because its hot on the market is SECONDARY TO ALL OF THIS. The fact that this is the most common reason for trading stocks (not on stock volume basis, but on stockholder numbers) does not change that it is SECONDARY, and not a primary concern of the people running the show (the company).

      Companies are founded because the origional owners had an idea for a product or service that would be usefull. This is how technology advances in the real world. This is how people get jobs in the real world. And this is how people make money to put food on the table in the real world. As soon as you put profit as the number 1 priority in front of all of this, you are starting to miss the point of the whole fucking situation.

      Corporations don't murder for profits, why not? Is it because its illegal, or because its greedy or immoral? If you answer the latter, then why is profit at all cost not immoral?

      See, my point is that it IS a political debate. People like you approach the problem from a whole different perspective. One that is usually the least of the moral, and the most of the profitable.

      I guess that is the difference between you and your party, and the rest of the world.

      All this said, I offer a simple soluton to the problem. Maybe someone other than the business school should be teaching business majors ethics.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    14. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Ramze · · Score: 1
      Dude, I agree with you. That's why I didn't reply to the parent post (yours), but the know-it-all who had the technical aspect wrong.

      I agree that long-term growth is much more important than short-term profits and hyping stocks to overvalue them temporarily, then selling them off for a profit.

      I also agree that ethics are a big problem today in management. Most of these corporate scandals are from hotshot execs that thought they could hide from fiscal reality forever (or at least until they retired to their private island faaaar away from the reach of the law) by manipulating numbers and hiding losses in dummy corporations or by using accounting tricks with inventory. Thankfully, more regulations and background checks should help some fix of the damage and restore confidence in the marketplace.

      I do disagree with your interpretation of the motives of entreprenuers & I do believe profit is the #1 motive of all businessmen, although social responsibility and the warm fuzzy feeling of making the world a better place do factor in. I subscribe to the "invisible hand" theory where all people in the world largely work for their own self-interests and by doing so, markets shift and businesses rise and fall or create new products to meet demands. I don't think morality enters into the equation of the dog-eat-dog world of business which is why we have to regulate it with laws and organizations to oversee them & simply trust that owners will refrain from illegal practices out of their own fear of prosecution. (sad, but likely necessary in a system that rewards the most cunning, ruthless backstabbers more than the nice guys just trying to make a difference).

      I ain't sayin' it's the greatest system, but it does make people strive to compete to offer lower prices and better products & work harder for more money. I think it's sad that many monopolies have the power to crush little guys with regulations they can't possibly adhere to 'n things like that, but hopefully laws will be made against that sort of behavior -- which is why I'm against corporate funding of political candidates 'n such -- cuz the crooks alter laws to help businesses and not the majority of the people, which is really who should be the ones whose voices are heard when laws are made, but that's another issue ;-)

      The whole point of investing anything is to see a return on the investment -- a profit. While it's true that some see benefiting humanity or other outcomes as "profitable" such as in non-profit organizations, most businesses operate with the expectation of generating a reasonable profit over time.

      Personally, I hate the ups and downs of the stock market daily. I don't see how so many people can value a stock at one thing one minute and something else the next all day every day on news like the war or such things like what the president said one day. I invest for the long-term (decades) because I trust that over time, the value of the company will increase because of responsible management -- and that's usually the case.

    15. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      The company owes you nothing; they have no requirement to pay you the value of your stock. In fact, the value of your stock is based solely on what other people are willing to buy it for because they *want* part of the company.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    16. Re:Bad News for Athlon? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Well written...

      thanks for the reply, and discussion :)

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
  25. AMD / Fujitsu comments / info by lingqi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, I don't think AMD never had any experience with DRAM, and Fujitsu, though has, was never a big player (big ones are Micron, Samsung, and Infinion, Hynix is dying so they don't count anymore). (Slightly off-topic - in term of SRAM, SONY is a huge player - who would have thought they were a big semiconductor company as well as consumer electronics?)

    Same time - few realize the tanglement between AMD and Fujitsu. They have been doing ventures together for a long time now - a few years back they put together a joint plant - it wasn't a great success as I remembered it, though

    Did y'all know Fujitsu is *the* largest computer / IT stuff manufacture in Japan?

    Lastly, AMD flash is going toward Mirror bit, while Intel is going toward multi-level storage. Honestly, intel version has more expandability (to a point - storing 1024 levels per cell is just impossible) - so we will see how that works out.

    Just random stuff I had in mind when I read the article - thought people might find them useless but nontheless mildly interesting.

    I personally wish them well, but I do wonder what would happen if they go into DRAM. They would either get slaughtered (lack of experience), or some DRAM manufactures would just go off and die (even more, for Hynix, or severely cripple, like NEC, Mitsubishi, etc who are small players in the DRAM area). DRAM market simply won't hold this many people (already seen so many consolidations as of the past).

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:AMD / Fujitsu comments / info by Cyno · · Score: 1

      a few years back they put together a joint plant

      I wish more companies would do that.

  26. I hope you're right! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is an optimistic interpretation of what's going on. The pessimistic interpretation is that they expect their processor unit to tank totally, and they don't want it to take down their flash memory works, so they're splitting it off. It's like the Enterprise-D separating the saucer section when the warp core in engineering is about to breech.

    1. Re:I hope you're right! by jandrese · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's like the Enterprise-D separating the saucer section when the warp core in engineering is about to breech.

      Sometimes it's nice to be reassured that I'm reading Slashdot. Can anybody think of geekier analogy?

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  27. Not quite... by Dielectric · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are some points to clear up here.

    Yes, AMD and Fujitsu have been in cahoots for a long time, but it was a really great venture rather than the poor one you hint at. They created FASL (Fujitsu-AMD Semiconductor Limited) which ships the lion's share of the world's flash. Several more fabs have been started as part of the FASL venture. Iw was, and is, a great success.

    Intel has been in multi-level cells, but the practical limit on it is the four-level cell they have now. They have just recently gotten that to work reliably. AMD's Mirror Bit cell is new, and obviously has only a four-bit cell, but when combined with the mirroring and multi-level, you've got a 16-bit cell. Evil.

    AMD will never, ever go into DRAM. It's a loser. Prices fluctuate way too much and you can't make much money at it. Their strength is in flash memory, and they know it.

  28. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is both funny _and_ insightful!

  29. So what? AMD is going under... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMD is going to report yet another huge quarterly loss in a few days. Their losses have been so large that they are out of money and will have to declare chapter 11 bankruptcy, probably by the end of this month. The only question left is what will happen to their Opteron CPU. Probably they will continue to operate their fab (if the lenders will permit that) on a small scale for a few months while they look for a buyer for the Opteron business which will probably go to Intel who will then shut it down.

  30. AMD is toast? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    I can't figure out where the benefit is for them, unless AMD's processor divison is expected to lose money (spinoffs are great for this -- you can saddle them with debts from the other company. Coca-Cola used to regularly do this.)

  31. Re:So what? AMD is going under... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    Probably they will continue to operate their fab (if the lenders will permit that) on a small scale for a few months while they look for a buyer for the Opteron business which will probably go to Intel who will then shut it down.

    I doubt Intel will be interested in buying anything but patents.

  32. Re:Athlon XPs hotter than the sun. by pmz · · Score: 1

    My Athlon 2600 XP box puts off WAYYY more heat than my Ultra 80! ;)

    This is because Sun makes reasonable power consumption a genuine design goal for UltraSPARC. I would bet that controlling power consumption is one reason why UltraSPARCs appear to be falling behind in the SPEC pseudo-wars. Regardless, it is pretty impressive that 1GHz UltraSPARC III systems can have the FP throughput of 2.8GHz Pentium 4s but at only 50 or so watts per CPU.

  33. Re:Athlon XPs hotter than the _Sun_. by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    I believe the original poster was referring to
    this presentation by one of Intel guys:

    http://www.intel.com/research/mrl/library/micro3 2k eynote.pdf
    (check out slide #8)
    comparing power density on CPU surface with other
    hot objects. Hot plate power density was
    surpassed by Pentium II, now we are moving
    pretty fast to nuclear reactor, and Sun surface
    is there on the plot too!

    Anyway, check it out.

    Paul Bu.

  34. AMD logo - all primed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You gotta love a company who's log looks like an erect penis! (use your imagination a little)

  35. Re:Athlon XPs hotter than the sun. by Surak · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but try explaining that to the clueless PHBs who think that Wintel workstations outperform Unix RISC workstations for CAD based on the clock frequency. :( Not only that but there's also the claim that Wintel boxes are *cheaper*. (In initial cost, yes, in TCO, no way.)

    *sigh*

  36. Re:Athlon XPs hotter than the sun. by pmz · · Score: 1

    Not only that but there's also the claim that Wintel boxes are *cheaper*.

    I'm still convinced Suns are better engineering workstations than PCs for the money. Soon, however, the Opteron will be very enticing, and will be pitted sqarely against the UltraSPARC IIIi. PTC is beginning to sell Pro/E for Linux, so Opteron/Linux workstations could be very good. I hope Sun has a business plan to beat/join this trend.

    One thing I've noticed, regardless of the CPU, is that the Sun graphics cards have a very high-quality output. For example, my old Creator 3D-based workstation has great anti-aliasing in Pro/E, but a high-end Compaq/Windows NT workstation I saw about a year ago had absolutely terrible anti-aliasing. My experience with PC graphics is limited, so enough time researching PC cards would probably turn up a winner eventually.

  37. Re:Athlon XPs hotter than the sun. by Surak · · Score: 1

    One thing I've noticed, regardless of the CPU, is that the Sun graphics cards have a very high-quality output. For example, my old Creator 3D-based workstation has great anti-aliasing in Pro/E, but a high-end Compaq/Windows NT workstation I saw about a year ago had absolutely terrible anti-aliasing. My experience with PC graphics is limited, so enough time researching PC cards would probably turn up a winner eventually.

    I agree...I'm looking an Ultra 60 with an Elite 3D graphics card and it's output is in many ways better than the NVidia card on the workstation next to it, running the same software (I-DEAS 9.2)

  38. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    The universe, they said, depended for its operation on the balance of four
    forces which they identified as charm, persuasion, uncertainty and
    bloody-mindedness.
    -- Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...